《中国康复理论与实践》

《中国康复理论与实践》

• 专题 • 上一篇    下一篇

周围神经电刺激对脊髓损伤大鼠轴突再生的影响①

王永杰1，洪毅2，陈学明1，张亚奎1   

  1. 1.首都医科大学附属北京潞河医院骨科，北京市101149；2.中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院，北京市100068。
  • 出版日期:2016-08-25 发布日期:2016-09-22

Effect of Peripheral Nerve Electrical Stimulation on Axon Regeneration after Spinal Cord Injury in Rats

WANG Yong-jie1, HONG Yi2, CHEN Xue-ming1, ZHANG Ya-kui1   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Luhe Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 101149, China; 2. Department of Spine Surgery, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China
  • Published:2016-08-25 Online:2016-09-22

PDF (PC)

摘要： 目的探讨周围神经电刺激对大鼠脊髓损伤后损伤节段轴突再生的影响。方法92 只健康成年Sprague-Dawley 大鼠随机分为空白对照组(n=12)、对照组(n=40)和实验组(n=40)。采用NYU打击器制作T8脊髓损伤模型。空白对照组不植入电刺激器。对照组只植入刺激器而不干预。实验组植入电刺激器，并施加电刺激干预。三组分别于脊髓损伤后1 d，1、2、4、8 周行BBB评分；1、2、4、8 周行运动诱发电位检测(MEP)评价大鼠后肢神经功能变化。三组分别于术后1、2、4、8 周取材，采用HE染色观察损伤节段脊髓的大体病理变化；采用免疫组化法测定损伤节段脊髓组织内神经丝蛋白200 (NF-200)、胶质纤维酸性蛋白(GFAP)水平。结果术后1 d，1、2、4 周，三组BBB评分无显著性差异(P>0.05)；8 周时实验组评分高于空白对照组和对照组(P<0.05)。术后1 周，三组MEP潜伏期和波幅无显著性差异(P>0.05)，术后2、4、8 周，实验组较空白对照组和对照组MEP潜伏期缩短，波幅增加(P<0.05)。术后1、2、4、8 周，三组脊髓损伤节段HE染色病理表现相似。术后1 周，三组间NF-200 轴突计数无显著性差异(P>0.05)；术后2、4、8 周，实验组NF-200 轴突计数多于空白对照组和对照组(P<0.05)。术后1、2、4、8 周，三组间GFAP表达无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论植入式周围神经电刺激能够促进脊髓损伤大鼠传导功能及运动功能的恢复，对损伤节段轴突的再生可能有促进作用。

关键词: 脊髓损伤, 电刺激, 轴突再生, 大鼠

Abstract: Objective To explore the effect of peripheral nerve electrical stimulation on axon regeneration after spinal cord injury (SCI) in rats. Methods Nighty-two healthy Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into blank control group (n=12), control group (n=40) and experimental group (n=40). All groups were suffered NYU impaction to prepare T8 SCI models, the control group and the experimental group implanted stimulating electrode on the sciatica nerve. The experimental group received electric intervention in addition. They were evaluated with BBB score one day, one week, two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling; and with motor evoked potentials (MEP) one week, two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling. Morphological changes and the expression of neurofilament protein (NF)-200 and glial fibers acid protein (GFAP) were observed by HE staining and immunohistochemistry one week, two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling. Results There was no significant difference in BBB scores among three groups (P>0.05) in all the time points except eight weeks (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the amplitudes and latencies among three groups one week after modeling (P>0.05), however, there was significant difference two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling (P<0.05). All the groups showed syringomyelia and glial scar formation one week, two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling. There was no significant difference in NF-200 axon count among three groups one week after modeling (P>0.05), but was different two weeks, four weeks and eight weeks after modeling (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in GFAP area count among three groups in all the time points (P>0.05). Conclusion Implantable peripheral nerve electrical stimulation can improve conduction function and motor function in rats with SCI. And it may promote axonal regeneration of the injured segments.

Key words: spinal cord injury, electrical stimulation, axonal regeneration, rats